I thought this would be a fun twist on the "you choose" resolution selection system.

The rules are simple. The opponent accepts the debate and decides whether they will "choose sides" or "choose the topic". Whichever role they do not choose swings my way.

Example: The opponent opts to "choose sides". I will tell them the topic I have chosen in the comments and they will choose which "side" they are on. (For or Against)

Example: The opponent opts to "choose the topic". They tell me the topic in the comments and I choose whether to be For or Against.

Pretty simple. The idea behind this is that it will drive out a fair resolution, as neither debater wishes to choose a topic that is more easily won from one "side" than the other.

Rules:

1. The Burden of Proof rests on the side making a positive claim. (Ie, something does exist or something is this way. If the resolution is "Tigers don't exist," then BoP is actually on "Against", as they are making the positive claim by negating the resolution.) If this is confusing, as for clarity in the comment section.

2. The standard of proof should be based on probabilistic correctness and not rigorous demonstration/proof. (The latter is still fine, of course.) Ie, if someone shows that it is very likely that tigers exist, they have met their burden. I've included this rule, as one could very easily take a cynical approach regarding proof.

3. R1 is for acceptance if I am "For" or it is for presentation of the opening arguments for Con if they are "against".

4. No Kritiks, arguments based purely on semantics, or any other argumentation structure that doesn't explore the issue at hand.

You must have at least 4 debates and an ELO score equal to or greater than 2,000 in order to accept. It is possible for people with 4+ debates and a low ELO to accept, but I ask that you respect my wishes and not accept unless you have met the ELO requirement.

The resolution is: "American municipalities on balance should choose to not flouridate their water drinking supply."

This is country specific because third world countries clearly need flouridated water supplies. My opponent has chosen Pro and this is split BOP. My opponent reserves the right to swap positions if he wants to in the first round. I am prepared to debate either side.

I'll be presenting an argument "For" the resolution "American municipalities on balance should choose to not flouridate their water drinking supply." As per the comments, Wylted and I have agreed to share the BoP.

I'll be presenting arguments in a punctuated form, hitting on the main idea. Later in the debate, I will expand upon these as needed.

Argumentation

1. Fluoridation is unethical.

It is a generally understood American ideal that people should not be forced to do things they do not want to do. This is especially relevant in areas where some unnecessary and unhelpful action is being forced upon us.

While it may be easy to think about water as a "service" that one does not have to use, one cannot forget that Americans are required to pay taxes for their water. That means this service is not free, but instead a product that is being purchased from the local government by the people. This purchase is in no way a choice on the part of the citizen.

As such, municipalities are abridging the people's freedom of choice by forcing them to imbibe a substance that they do not want. Fluoridation is not a reflection of the will of the people, but instead an arbitrary choice by the government of the United States. The situation would be no different if instead of fluoride, the government introduced opiates or some truth agent into the water system. In that scenario, the people would still a) pay for it and b) have no choice in the matter.

Not flouridating the water is the natural solution to this ethical dilemma.

2. Water fluoridation is unnecessary.

When water fluoridation was introduced in the 1940's, there was not adequate access to fluoride in the United States. It was used by dentists, but no "over the counter" fluoride products were made. Today, the opposite is the case. It is commonplace for toothpastes, mouthwashes and other teeth cleaning agents to have fluoride included in the product.

As such, it is no longer necessary to fluoridate water, as ethical and cheap alternatives exist. It cannot be said that "poor people don't have access to fluoride", as these teeth cleaning agents are inexpensive and massively available. Those who do not use toothpaste and similar products are actively making a choice that could result in tooth decay.

This choice is their fundamental right as Americans and it should not be taken away. Bad dental heigene is in no way a communicable disease. A person with bad teeth in no way poses a risk to others. Therefore, there is no justification for forcing "dental health" upon people, since their choice to have poor dental health only negatively impacts themselves.

Furthermore, it cannot be said that poor dental health negatively affects others through economic mechanisms. One cannot go to the emergency room for lost or decaying teeth nor can they use other publically funded medical services for that issue. As such, the economic cost of choosing to have poor dental health is not transferred to other parties.

3. Water fluoridation may not even be medically beneficial.

There have not been any controlled tests of water fluoridation, which sets it apart from every other legal drug offered to the public. [1] Some studies (mainly those performed by government agencies) find that water fluoridation increases dental health. Others find no link between fluoridation and dental health, while others still find that fluoridation has negative health benefits that go far outside dental health.

Given the apparent lack of consensus on the effectiveness of water fluoridation, the claim that water should be fluoridated becomes even more dubious. Not only is it unethical, not only is it unnecessary, but it may be flat out ineffective at accomplishing its stated goal.

Recognizing this, my previous two points stand even stronger, as one cannot claim that there are demonstrative health benefits that exist to outweigh unethical and unnecessary water fluoridation.

Conclusion

This has been a cursory introduction of my arguments. I will likely not present any arguments that are unrelated to the ones presented here. I look forward to my opponent's response.

Pressed for time but will do my best. Rebuttals will occur in next round.

Fluoride is not a medication but in fact is a naturrally occurring mineral in most water supplies. This is not like debating whether to put prozac in the water, it is more like debating whether to put vitamin A in the water supply. We already fortify many common ingredients to prevent deficiencies, whether that be iodine in salt, vitamin D in milk or folic acid to breads and cereals.

Federal health officials have determined that the optimal level of fluoridation is .7 parts per million. There are 2 main benefits from having fluoridation at the reccomended level. One benefit is strong healthy bones. The other benefit is to help create healthier teeth, as fluoride prevents tooth decay.

Almost every study that comes out shows that water fluoridation saves the community money, we have studies showing that anywhere between 30 and 60 dollars is saved for every dollar invested in fluoridation programs. My one citation at the end of this wil provide the appropriate citations to confirm all these facts. One study shows that children who dran fluoridated water as children ended up having stronger healthier teeth even as much as 40 and 50 years later than children who went without it.

According to my source, there is still a major problem with tooth decay in America and it has displayed the following effects:

"

"Tooth decay is the most common chronic health problem affecting children in the U.S. It is five times more common than asthma. Tooth decay causes problems that often last long into adulthood — affecting kids’ ability to sleep, speak, learn and grow into happy and healthy adults.

California children missed 874,000 school days in 2007 due to toothaches or other dental problems. A study of seven Minneapolis-St. Paul hospitals showed that patients made over 10,000 trips to the emergency room because of dental health issues, costing more than $4.7 million.

Poor dental health worsens a person’s future job prospects. A 2008 study showed that people who are missing front teeth are viewed as less intelligent and less desirable by employers.

In a 2008 study of the armed forces, 52% of new recruits were categorized as Class 3 in “dental readiness” — meaning they had oral health problems that needed urgent attention and would delay overseas deployment"